mercuryg

Fair enough, with one concession........ This is a misunderstanding, and one widely proliferated by typically innacurate wikipedia article that i suspect you've accessed. Those five countries are the ones who openly ADMIT to having built their own nuclear weaponry, yet there are numeous others that are well known to have not only the capability to do so, but in some cases are believed to have done so. India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel - as you mention - are known factors, and Iran, Syria, Japan, a number of the middle east countries and a handful of others are widely believed to have nuclear capability. Furthermore, many countries are home to nuclear weaponry in good order - the former Russian states (the Soviet Union no longer exists) being notable as not only did many f the weapons stay in their bases upon the break up of the Union but their is a well known quite alarming discrepancy between the number of warheads that were around at that time and those that exist now (in other words, quite a large number have 'gone missing'). One other thing I will say is that your last line about free speech is interesting, and while it may well be in no way down to Nuclear Weapons it is certainly down to weapons per se; that nuclear weaponry was in its infancy at the time of the last world war is the reason for that, otherwise we would undoubtedly have been looking at the H-bomb as our saviour from a Nazi regime.

Fair comment. Ok, let me get this straight; if I'm reading this right, you think that we can do without Trident and nuclear deterrents because the USA will come to our rescue? That is what you're saying? That because we are with them in the Oil War they will leap to our defence? The scenario is this: we do away with Trident, North Korea or a.n. other goes apeshit and decides to bomb us as a show of strength, and the USA is our saviour? I'm sorry but if that's what you believe then you clearly ARE looking at the world through rose tinted glasses! The USA wouldn't lift a finger unless it, too, is attacked. Ok, it's very expensive, granted, but then keeping your country safe and protected is never going to be cheap. I understand your reasoning that the money could be - in your eyes - better spent elsewhere, but that misses the point that if xyz party does scrap Trident they aren't going to spend that money - it will be an example of 'spending cuts' hailed to show how economical the new leaders are being. I can only say I disagree with you in that it's great to have a country that we wish to strive to improve, but I'm happy to pay my bit to make it one that future generations can strive to improve with a reduced threat of being blasted from the face of the earth by some mad idiot.

As it clearly concerns you - being bombed, that is - surely you can see that having the ability to retaliate means you can, in fact, sleep easier? I'm not sure that you're being consistent here; on the one hand you say you can see the arguments for having Trident, on the other you are convinced it's a waste of money. Granted, it's very pricey, as is anything designed to protect an entire nation, but surely the portion of our taxes that goes to the defence budget is something we should be happy to contribute to? I agree, it's of little use in Iraq and Afganistan but that's a moot point as, like you I suspect, I don't believe we should be there. The point is this: there are mad tyrants in the world who are gaining in power - look to Korea, for example, for the first signs of instability - and who, like many have gone before, may well have delusions of world domination. It's always been like this - we are not, in any way, one big, happy family of nations all existing in the perfect harmony of an aged Blue Mink hit. Say one of those tyrants decides he fancies unleashing his firepower on a country that would show his might; if he knows they would simply wipe him out in a retaliatory attack, he's much, much less likely to do so. He'll choose someone who can't retaliate. Get rid of Trident, and the resultant vulnerability you leave the county open to is worth far more to thers than the price we pay for a deterrent.

Before we start messing with the voting system we have to get more than six out of ten people to vote.

You've answered your own original question there; we don't want to get bombed, and neither does anyone else, hence having an effective deterrent such as Trident means we are much less likely to. That's why we have it, and must continue to do so.

With respect, this is a scary post. We need a deterrent that is enough of a threat to keep people worried. There are some very unstable regimes in the world right now that should not be underestimated.

Love old steam trains! Where will I be able to see it then?

Not racist at all, no matter who it's asked by. How many unemployed? How many work for the civil service? How many use the X31 everyday? How many were born outside the UK?

This is a serious question, not one meant to be inflammatory at all, but how many immigrants are there in Bedlington?

Sounds like a load of !*!@# to me; Merlin's mate must have misunderstood something somewhere. Think about it - unless the job centre bods say this to everyone who goes in for the interview then that means there's a bag load of jobs that never get filled. I have never had this question asked in all my time going there in the past, and from a quick question to those i've just spent the morning with - some of whom are still going there, two of whom have recently had such an interview, they weren't asked the question either. Surely, also, they would have the interviewees details in front of them, on computer? Indeed, I remember my address and postcode being part of the security questions asked! There's a rabbit away somewhere.

Mobius, Nothing wrong with what you are saying at all; my problem - in response to cympil and others - is not that I believe our politicians are a whiter than white biunch of honest men who are going to, somehow, turn this mess around, but that not voting because 'it won't make any difference' is actually the thing that is making the biggest difference! Do those proclaiming complete and utter apathy at the thought of voting realise what the turn out was at the last election, i.e. what proportion of people with a vote actually bothered to use it? For the record, it was just over 60% (not as bad as the previous one where it was just under 60%....). That translates as this - and i'm not being facetious in outlining something so simple: out of ten people who can vote only six bother to do so. Think what a difference there may be to the results if that remaining, and they are the 'i'm not bothering to vote because it won't make a difference' crew, actually cast a vote; presumably they are not happy with their lot, as it is primarily they you read on forums such as this spouting off about what a bunch of !*!@# our MP's are (not something i'm going to dispute) and how they are doing a really !*!@# job. If they are not happy with their lot, they have the opportunity to actually do somethign about it; granted, nothing is going to happen overnight, but being utterly complacent and choosing not to vote is not the answer to anything - short or long term. This isn't a minor portion of the population we're talking about, it's 40% of them! The thing is, Cympil, you may come back with your 'I told you so' line as things get worse, but what have you achieved? The pride in knowing that there isn't going to be an instant revolution? We all know that - it doesn't make you special! Further, you will have no right blaming anyone for voting for someone as those who did vote were at least deserving of your help, and you didn't give it! If you have a vote use it, if you don't use it keep it zipped when you don't like what happens at the next t budget; me, I'll be ranting rightfully about the actions of a party that I voted for and didn't keep their promise, or one that i didn't vote for and aim to get rid of.

This is the most ridiculous sentence that anyone can possibly write in relation to an upcoming general election. If you don't vote you are allowing others to determine the outcome - you cannot then rant on as you have been on here if you have had no say in the process. Why do you think we get a vote? Do you think it is our God given right to live in a country that elects its political leaders this way? Or perhaps it was something that people actually fought for, and that we should respect? The sentence quoted is absolutely and intrinsically wrong - any person with any sense makes it their duty to vote, for that's the only way you stand any chance of getting things changed. Merlin - why should you vote against those in power? If you have to ask that question you're as much a clown - with due respect - as those you are complaining about; the very fact you're complaining about them is your answer. If you don't like what you have, you don't accept it without trying something different. I hope, after the election, there are no tirades of complaints from those who choose not to vote, as in doing so you choose nto to have a voice at all.

I thought we knew the (lease) was up for sale??

Well said, couldn't agree more.

Right - that's the attitude! We're all for it! So what are you doing about it? Oh, wait, you're waiting for someone else to do it for you, aren't you? That's the problem these days - we have it all too easy, and people - like you, like me, ordinary, everyday people - get this attitude of 'they're all the same, it's not worth voting'. And then what are we left with? Something, someone, who somebody else voted for, who we complain about, who we want rid of. Tough - we didn't vote, we let this happen. Get off your !*!@# , stop waiting for others to do what needs to be done, and vote; it starts like this - if you don't like the way things are right now, you need to vote AGAINST the party in power. Get it? The revolution isn't going to happen thanks to somebody else.

But how is it a con? It's got a better potential return rate than the National Lottery. Is that a con? You're very bitter for some reason, merlin!

Not sure that it was in the deli but rather in the flat above the Post Office, which had quite clearly had it's door smashed in.

Somebody has swallowed a copy of The Communist Manifesto, me thinks.

That came in the middle of the cold spell when the dray couldn't get here. It was the same at the Tavern at that exact time. I'm pretty certain that all Punch bars are metered with a direct link to the headquarters - like I said, i've seen it elsewhere but haven't been into the cellar at the Wharton.

really? Now that is weird because it's my understanding that all Punch houses are electronically metered with a direct usage count going to headquarters to begin with; it can't be bypassed. Never been in the cellar in the Wharton, but that's what I understand. It would be difficult, also, to buy the beers that the bar sells from 'elsewhere' without 'elsewhere' letting Punch know, as the supplier of John Smiths, carling etc would be the same one Punch used. I doubt this happened, to be honest. From what i've heard, she's simply not making a living.

Bar lass, The memories are still with me; did anyone ever win anything with those bets? And did we succeed in hiding from the Blind Man? Anyhow, back to the point.... You are correct in slating the government but alcohol is a luxury and, as such, will always be taxed to the hilt. The direct problem lies with the fact that it is nigh on impossible to make a decent living these days from a tied house, as the likes of Punch Taverns are hanging on to a property portfolio, not a chain of pubs. We have to remember that Punch, and many others who own a great number of pubs, is not a brewery; the brewery's - and there are many - supply their products in a free market, yet Punch insists that their tenants pay THEM the price that THEY set. I know of a manager in a free house who is paying a lot less for the same products than in a tied house, and benefiting from the result (the prices, while not considerably lower, are notably discounted but the fact remains that the ability to make a living is actually realistic.) Pubs are not charities, after all, but businesses, yet something needs to be done to rejuvenate interest. Having said that, I was in the Grapes yesterday for a couple of hours and considering it was Wednesday afternoon there was a fair deal of trade going on. Perhaps we should have regular bedlington.co.uk meets in local bars; i'm sure Monsta would be the first at the bar to get a round in.

I thought it was his wife who took on the lease; he certainly didn't own it.

I've thought long and hard about this and have made the difficult decision to go on strike myself from tomorrow demanding better pay. I have told myself that I will not return to work until I pay me more money, and i'm off to the pub to form a picket line which I will not permit myself from crossing.

The limited company is a common practice by those who take on tied houses to ensure they are not going to lose their houses should the venture go under. The lease is held - for the time agreed - by said company, but the premises are owned throughout by the brewery (or in this case, if Mr Darn is right, Punch Taverns), as are the fixtures and fittings. I'm not sure Claire is right in saying the current landlady is a stop gap, as I believe she bought the lease at the going rate from Punch. Curiously, it is not listed on the Punch website as either a lease for sale or a business transfer.

You fancy it, Mr Darn???? As far as I know it's a tied house, so it is unlikely to be up for sale as such but looking for someone to take on the lease. Who owns it, because I don't think - unusually - it's Punch Taverns!